NASA's InSight lander successfully touched down on Mars last week, ending a journey of more than six months and 300 million miles.
The path to the successful landing, of course, started much earlier than that. It was the eighth successful Mars landing since Viking 1 in 1976, and each mission builds on the one before it.
You can go back even further, too, to the beginnings of the space program, to the first satellites launched nervously into orbit, to the eventual landmark landing of a manned spacecraft on the moon, and to every mission and experiment that came after.
All that experience and success may have over time made space exploration seem routine — oh, look, we landed on Mars again. However, it is anything but. It takes state-of-the-art technology operated by people with high levels of expertise and focus — and even then, only about 40 percent of Mars landings are successful.
Anyone watching this week can see why. InSight entered the Martian atmosphere traveling at about 12,300 mph. It had to do so precisely at the entry angle of 12 degrees; otherwise, it would have either burned up or bounced back into space.
The entry into the atmosphere begins the "seven minutes of terror," as NASA officials call it, named after the time from entry until the landing of earlier Mars missions. In that time, through the use of a parachute and rockets, and with the help of atmospheric drag, the lander dropped from 12,300 mph to 5 mph right before it settled into the soft soil.
InSight, launched in May from Vandenburg Air Force Base in California, landed at Elysium Planitia, a flat, barren landscape from which the lander will begin the first-ever investigation of the interior of Mars, sending images at regular intervals back to NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
Working slowly with only those occasional images as guides, NASA operators will over the next few months confirm that InSight is working. Then it will get to work. An arm on the lander will be used to place seismometers on the ground to listen to the planet's tremors, or marsquakes — the red planet's equivalent of earthquakes. A separate instrument will burrow 16 feet into the ground.
In that way, InSight is like a time machine, taking us back to see what Earth might have been like millions of years ago, providing elusive answers to our own origins.
It is an amazing accomplishment, one that should be free of rancor and cynicism. When we want to, we can reach the stars.
— The Sentinel, Rome
The report of the special committee setting Albany pay gets a grade of A-minus for power-washing a filthy Capitol. Tom DiNapoli, Scott Stringer, Carl McCall and Bill Thompson earned the thanks of all New Yorkers.
If legislators don't like it, tough noogies. They're the ones who cravenly punted to a panel.
Lawmakers' base salaries, unchanged at $79,500 for 20 years, will rise in three steps while corruption-inducing outside income will be strictly capped and most of the extra lulu payments for favored members nixed.
Eighty-seven Senate lulus (for 63 senators!) will winnow down to six; 108 Assembly lulus will be cut to nine. There should've been fewer. In Congress, there are just three lulus per chamber — the majority getting two, the minority one.
Happily, new Senate Finance Chair Liz Krueger is declining her $34,000 lulu. That leaves Senate Democrats with two lulus, for Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins ($41,500) and Deputy Majority Leader Mike Gianaris ($34,000). Minority Republicans should limit themselves to one lulu for leader John Flanagan ($34,500) and dispense with the two other $20,500 lulus.
Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie ($41,500) not only gets to award the $34,500 majority leader lulu, but the panel also wrongly gave him lulus for the speaker pro tempore and the chairs of Ways and Means and Codes, while Republican Leader Brian Kolb gets his own, which is OK, and three more to hand out, which is not OK.
Imperfect, but progress.
— The Daily News, New York
For the third time this year, a federal government shutdown looms as President Donald Trump demands more money for a Southern border wall in exchange for a budget deal with congressional leaders.
How can Trump blame Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, who is likely to be speaker of the House, for not paying up when he's always promised that Mexico would foot the bill?
Tuesday at the White House, Trump met with Pelosi and Schumer. The Democrats have offered $1.3 billion for border security, approximately the same amount appropriated for this year, but mostly not spent. But the math didn't dominate a meeting that turned into a confrontation. Trump needled Pelosi by implying she is weak in her caucus, and he seemed blown back when she hit hard on his party's House losses. The president also taunted Schumer with threats of a shutdown, only to have the grimacing senator say of his budget offer, "It's called funding the government, Mr. President." Then Trump pounced on the idea of a shutdown, saying, "I will take the mantle, I will be the one to shut it down," if they won't fund more wall construction. In January, Schumer offered Trump $25 billion for the wall in return for protection from deportation for 800,000 immigrants brought here as children. Trump turned it down, and much of the federal government shut down for three days. The president often wants to fight, especially over the wall, more than he wants to win.
But the American people do not want a shutdown. Polls show they do want a path to legal residency for "Dreamers," whose lives are so important that it would be worth giving Trump more wall money to secure their futures. If Trump wants that deal, Democrats ought to listen. If not, they ought to let him put his shutdown on his shoulders.
Or he can get the money from Mexico, as he's always promised.
— Newsday, Long Island